Trial reportMedicine2017
A randomized controlled trial of acupressure as an adjunctive therapy to sodium valproate on the prevention of chronic migraine with aura.
Trial report in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of acupuncture-related therapy for migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using acupressure as an adjunctive therapy to sodium valproate (SV) combined with acupressure (ASV) on the prevention of chronic migraine with aura (CMA).
methodsA total of 98 patients with CMA were randomly divided into an intervention group and a control group, with 49 patients in each group. The patients in the intervention group received ASV, while the participants in the control group received SV alone. The primary outcome was measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcomes including frequency of migraine attacks, the times of using analgesics, and quality of life, measured by the short-form 36 Health Survey Scale (SF-36) score. In addition, adverse events (AEs) were also recorded throughout the trial. The outcomes were measured at the end of the 8-week treatment, and 4-week follow-up.
resultsAfter the 8-week treatment and 4-week follow-up, ASV efficacy was not greater than that of SV alone regarding pain relief, as measured using the NRS, and frequency of migraine attacks, consumption of analgesics, and quality of life, as measured using the SF-36. However, ASV can significantly reduce the nausea when compared with SV (P = .04).
conclusionThe present results indicate that ASV can decrease migraine-related nausea during treatment, but cannot relieve pain or enhance quality of life in patients with CMA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.